Protect Traditional Marriage: YES on California Proposition 8
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Vote YES on California Proposition 8.
The protect marriage web site is here.
Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, Protect Marriage, Proposition 8
Flap's Comments on Politics, the Dental World and Much More
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Vote YES on California Proposition 8.
The protect marriage web site is here.
Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, Protect Marriage, Proposition 8
227 Comments
Kathy
Let me catch up with the mass of recent posts and I will be able to talk about the topic at hand
Kathy
Seriously? You are Moderating my comments now?
I did a little check to see if YOU were from California yourself… you are, at least according to FaceBook. In fact I have family in your area.
Flap
Kathy,
Sitemeter could be wrong or I could be wrong but for now Dameon remains on moderation because he has a habit of hurling the insults and calling me names.
I will check again in the morning about your ip address.
Kathy
Just so you know Dameon, because Flap took issue with people saying that rights were being taken away, so much that he and I were having the same difficulties you and he were, I promised that I would refer to prop 8 as taking away TITLE of marriage.
What’s more, when Flap agreed with you that this was THE right that was being taken away. This was kind of a big step in the argument, but instead of pointing it out, you glossed over it by attacking him personally.
I hate it when people resort to that kind of thing; it makes them sound like a nut.
I hate it even more when I actually agree with them, because it makes ME sound like a nut.
Flap
I agreed to what right?
There is a right to gay marriage? Who says?
Tell me, Kathy, how that ballot language appeared on the California ballot and election materials.
Kathy
They currently have the right to marriage
Speaking clinically, and without stepping into the emotional minefield of whether or not they have an INNATE right to marry, they currently hold the LEGAL right to do so.
You said it was a “contrived right” but it is a current legal right nonetheless. @99 you conceded that this was the right that was being taken away.
This came after several days of denying that any rights were being taken away because you were focusing on the domestic partnership rights that have nothing whatsoever to do with Prop 8.
Kathy
I know this is an emotional issue, but because you and I are so very polarized on the emotional side of it, the only way we are ever going communicate rationally is by trying to leave emotion out of it. The innate right to marry is an emotional issue for the both of us and we could spend all our time and energy arguing over who is morally allowed to own that right.
Even if you don’t believe they have the right to marry simply because you did not vote to allow them to have the right I would like to make the distinction between the traditional, legal, and literal definition of marriage.
“Traditionally†marriage has been between a man and a woman, but marriage is currently, and never has been before, LITERALLY defined as such within the California Constitution.
Prop 8 is trying to change the literal, legal DEFINITION of marriage to reflect the historical PRACTICE.
I am talking strictly about words and laws – not emotion.
Kathy
-late for work, talk to you tonight.
Flap
@99
I said a “contrived” right.
You avoided answering how that “contrived” right appeared on the ballot.
In California, gay marriage is not prohibited as a matter of law set by the California Supreme Courts interpretation. Is this a right?
Is there a fundamental right to gay marriage?
The answer is no. I welcome your arguments to the contrary.
You are correct in that Proposition 8 does not affect gay partnership rights. Those rights as established by legislated law are not affected.
Kathy
First, if you’ll re-read my 106 you will see that I already quoted you as saying that it was a “contrived right”.
Second, I do in fact believe that marriage is a fundamental right.
If it is not fundamental, then maybe the state of California should also vote on whether or not you or I should be allowed to marry (not each other of course)
What obviously I do NOT believe, is that it is a fundamental right for straight people alone.
I make no distinction between gay marriage and straight marriage, because I make no distinction between gays and straights.
Kathy
Marriage has, on numerous occasions been defined as a fundamental right.
At the time they weren’t talking about gay marriage, so it was both implied and infered that the laws were referring to straights, but no laws until recently actually, explicitly, stated this.
You obviously see a difference between gay people and straight people
Or at least between gay marriage and straight marriage
But let’s just talk about the law alone
If there is no legal distinction between domestic partnership and marriage (as far as benefits go), but there IS a difference in title, how is that not segregation?
Kathy
Why do straight people have the fundamental right to marry?
Steve M
All the Noise, Noise, Noise!
No matter how loudly and often supporters of same gender marriage attack proponents of traditional marriage, the simple irrefutable fact is that same gender marriage and traditional marriage are not identical, and never will be. Period. Regardless of what happens in the California election.
And no matter what proponents of traditional marriage say, opponents will scream its opposite. I am amazed at the sheer volume of hateful and intolerant comments made by opponents of Proposition 8. To me, this speaks volumes about where bigotry, discrimination, and hate truly exist – in the hearts of people who express themselves with such rage and venom, regardless of their political or sexual persuasion.
So what really is the core issue? Is it equal rights? Is it social acceptance of homosexuality? And what about the children?
Equal Rights
In the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George overturning the voter approved statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman, he stated that “California . . . in recent years has enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation under which a same-sex couple may enter into a legal relationship that affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple.â€
Furthermore, in that same opinion, he also wrote, “from the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman . . . and the marriage statute adopted by the California Legislature during its first session clearly assumed that the marriage relationship necessarily involved persons of the opposite sex.†Hmmmm . . .
The California Family Code, in Section 297.5, paragraphs a, b, and c (which are identical, except for the references in parentheses) clarifies the legal rights and responsibilities of registered domestic partners are entitled to in California. “Registered (and former registered, and surviving registered) domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses (and former spouses, and a widow or widower).
California’s voter information guide contains arguments and rebuttals for both sides of the argument. In the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Proposition 8, opponents wrote, “California statutes clearly identify nine real differences between marriage and domestic partnerships.â€
What are these differences? Be specific people, don’t just throw up a smoke screen, wave your arms, and cry foul. If you want to solve the equal rights problem, say exactly what the specific needs are so that legislation can be passed that will provide the specific liberties being sought. Equality California is a leading organization founded in 1998 to pursue equal rights for homosexual people in California. The organization’s website states that, “In the past 10 years, Equality California has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation. In the past decade, EQCA has successfully passed more than 45 pieces of civil rights legislation for the LGBT community – more than any other statewide LGBT organization in the nation. Most sections of California law prohibit discrimination based on a long list of protected classes, including sexual orientation, gender and gender identity. LGBT Californians are protected from discrimination in securing employment and housing, accessing government services and participating in state-funded activities. LGBT people are also protected under the state’s hate crime law.†This organization, and many others like it, is not going to go away, so it is safe to assume that they will continue to pursue equal rights for LGBT individuals in California until true legal equality is achieved. No problem. It’s already in process.
Social Acceptance of Homosexuality
Opponents of Proposition 8 claim that they are not looking for societal acceptance of homosexuality, they simply want homosexuals to be free to marry the person they love. If true equality under law can be achieved for both traditional married couples and civil unions between same gender couples, and if there are only nine differences that remain to be legislated, then the discrimination argument can be resolved equitably in the near future. Same gender couples can then truly receive all the benefits and responsibilities of traditionally married couples in every respect EXCEPT in name. Will that be acceptable to the LGBT community? If so, then let’s settle this mess and get on with other pressing business. If not, then it reveals the lie about what is opponents of Proposition are really seeking – societal acceptance of homosexuality. And on this subject, the people have every right to vote and determine what society should accept or not accept without being called a bigot or homophobe.
Let the voice of the people decide! But separate the two issues – equal rights and societal acceptance. Opponents KNOW that if the issues were separate, they would FAIL. Many people are just plain disgusted with and tired of hearing about gays and homosexuality. They object to being told, “It’s going to happen now, whether you like it or not.†Thus, opponents focus the spotlight on the “fairness†and “equality†arguments, and sweep the issue of societal acceptance under the carpet. Yet the societal acceptance is insidious. It has the real potential to create problems that are just beginning to be seen in places that have legalized same gender marriage.
The Future
All over the Internet, you can read articles claiming that proponents of Proposition 8 are using scare tactics and outright lies about its implications on children to win its passage. In researching this subject, I found that there have been many efforts over the years to pass California laws having to do with the promotion of homosexuality in our schools. Some few have passed, but the majority failed. I am surprised that few have publicly observed that the failure of most of these measures to pass was likely related to California’s recognition at the time that marriage was between a man and a woman. In other words, that definition, which became California law when voters passed it overwhelmingly in 2000, was an important bulwark in the legal defense of striking down proposed legislation that would mandate same gender education of our young children. That fence has been blown down now, as it were, by the May 2008 judicial fiat. If Proposition 8 does not pass, will the proposals for new legislation mandating exposing our children to increased education about LGBT issues cease? What does history already show? Any rational adult will recognize that if anything, such efforts will ONLY INCREASE, and find greater likelihood of passage. Scare tactics? We are talking about the future of our children here.
To those who say that children in schools will not be affected by the defeat of Proposition 8, I say, what makes you a prophet? After the recent catastrophic global economic meltdown, former financial demigod Alan Greenspan has now admitted a fundamental error in his beliefs about the issue of deregulation in our banking and financial system that was a major factor in the economic collapse. OOPS! That mess has been totally devastating to millions of people, and will take years to clean up. We are all affected, and will be for many years to come. The multitudinous ramifications of legalized same gender marriage won’t be fully understood or visible for years, but by then it may be too late to prevent major problems that can affect everyone in California. To even think otherwise is to be blind to real life. Take a look at what is already happening where same sex marriage was legalized years ago, and you can see some of the harbingers.
Discrimination, which is often used to mean unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice, is wrong. But the word discrimination also means to discern qualities and recognize the differences between things. By this definition, we all discriminate every day as a necessary part of making decisions. And recognizing the qualities and differences between traditional and same gender marriage should not mean that we are all forced to equalize them. Some allowances should be made for the differences. In this regard, California already has the most tolerant and non-discriminatory laws regarding same gender couples that can be found anywhere in the U.S. Proposition 8 will not change this. If there are more laws that need to be passed to provide true equality, then let’s get them out in the open, deal with them, and stop the arm waving and name calling. California has already proven that it is willing to provide equal rights. We can maintain this tradition without redefining marriage for everyone just because a tiny fraction of the population really, really wants to.
I believe we need to be tolerant, respectful, non-discriminatory, sensitive, and loving towards those of same gender persuasion (see, no name calling or rage), but without accepting same sex unions as being socially equal to the institution of traditional male-female marriage. That’s why I will vote Yes on Proposition 8.
VOTE NO
Separate but kinda equal is NOT equal. Prop 8 does take away rights like long-term care insurance, state veteran benefits for widowed spouses, shared property and marriage.
************** VOTE NO on PROP 8 **************
Kathy
When writing law, you need to be extremely careful about what you mean, and what you actually say. You can not be allowed to make a rulling on law based on something that was never actually written.
@107 I stated that “Even if you don’t believe they have the right to marry simply because you did not vote to allow them to have [it]… marriage [strictly between a man and a woman] is currently, and never has been before, LITERALLY defined as such within the California Constitution.â€
@109 I conceded that, when marriage laws were first written, “at the time they weren’t talking about gay marriage, so it was both implied and inferred that the laws were referring to straights, but no laws until recently actually, explicitly, stated this.â€
This is what 8 is trying to change
Kathy
To Steve who, oddly enough, uses the very same wording you do Flap
Equal rights
… there are two water fountains, they are in the same town, they are made by the same fountain-making company, they allow people to enjoy the same local water, but one is for one group and the other for another.
Regardless of the same benefits to different groups receive, and I would argue ESPECIALLY if the receive the same rights but are kept separate from one another, how is how is their separation NOT segregation?
In this way, why should having the same rights but not the same title be acceptable?
If marriage is ok only for straights and domestic partnership is ok for gays, I have a question: Because marriage is talked about in high school (not exactly young children here), do you have a problem with them being taught about domestic partnership as well?
The future
When have there been California laws trying to mandate teaching about homosexual marriage in schools? Which laws? What year?
You are angry at the people who claim (to see the future) that children will not be taught about gay marriage, yet you yourself claim to conceive a future in which they will.
Kathy
Acknowledgement of differences
I have said before that I see no differences between straight marriage and gay marriage because I see no difference between straights.. Their “gayness†means only that they are attracted to different people than I am. Now, maybe you are right in that, that alone does make them different than me, but I don’t see differences as deficits.
And I do not believe that have to be the same as me to be my equal.
Kim
With November 4th around the corner, we’ve been bombarded with an overwhelming number of campaign ads. While they are annoying, I feel the need to follow in their footsteps and speak up so that you can make a more educated decision when you head to the polls.
I am gay and have been with my wife for 8 years. We made personal life commitments to each other in 2007 and then committed to each other legally in 2008 after same-sex marriage was granted by the California Supreme Court.
I think it’s overly dramatic to claim that Proposition 8, which denies same-sex marriage in California, promotes or supports hate towards homosexuals. I really believe that most who are against same-sex marriage simply don’t understand it.
The supporters of Prop 8 use the saying that they’re trying to “Protect Marriage.†It’s not about taking rights away, they affirm, but protecting their own rights. I promise you, we don’t want to take anything away from straight couples who have found love.
My devotion to my wife doesn’t take anything away from the commitment you’ve made to your significant other. It would not weaken or cheapen what you have. Instead, denying same-sex marriage or allocating us a “civil union†cheapens our commitment.
If your beliefs on homosexuality are shaped by the Bible, it should still not influence your vote. I could make arguments about the Bible and how it’s been edited or other “rules†it includes that people are not passionate about. But bottom line, the freedom of religion allows you to believe in the Bible. If you choose to do so, I respect that.
But for America to be what it is, and for YOU to continue to have the freedom to worship who you choose and to believe the written words of the Bible, there has to be liberty. There has to be the allowance of people to be who they are and then expectations to respect each other and their differences. The separation of church and state requires that religious beliefs not be the basis for decisions when it comes to how I live my life as an American. Denying me the ability to marry whom I choose is a violation of my civil rights and it legalizes discrimination.
While it is about legal rights, tax filing, and medical decisions, it’s really about love. Marriage is the ultimate expression of a person’s love for another. Some may use the argument that the institution of marriage has been cheapened by the divorce rate and the “Marry a Millionaire†shows, but I respect and believe in it. I honor the commitment that I made to my wife.
This past week in the San Francisco Chronicle, a 29 year old woman by the name of Myrna Elias was quoted as saying, “A lot of friends had a hard time coming out to their parents and others, and I’m sympathetic to what they went through. But I can still love those persons and still be for Prop 8.â€
If you vote yes on Prop 8, you are supporting an idea that ignores my core identity and declaring that my commitment to my wife is deficient. You may not be promoting hate, but I cannot see how you can claim to love me.
I ask you to please respect me and my liberties as an American and vote NO on Proposition 8. I appreciate you taking the time to read this. If you’re interested in discussing the topic further, please feel free to contact me and I would love to do so.
Kims last blog post..Marriage for everyone
Pingback:
Flap
@112
The Bible and most other religions hold so. Marriage is between a man and woman.
Flap
@110
And, this is the basic difference in our arguments: I do not accept your premise that there is no difference between homosexual and traditional marriage.
Kathy
@121
How then can you still claim that this is not about equality, when you do not see them as equal?
Kim
@120 & 110
I don’t disagree with either of you in regards to most organized religions being against homosexuality. The only thing is that separation of church and state requires it to not be a part of the equation when it comes to civil liberties. I’m sure both of you are happy that you are able to worship who you choose. These same civil liberties protect you right now, and they should protect everybody else who happens to not feel the same way as you do as well.
Flap
@122
You are making the equality argument which I reject. I reject your premise and certainly your conclusion based on the false premise.
Flap
@123
The first amendment text: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The controlling part of the religion clause here is: “prohibiting the free exercise therof…”
The consequences of Proposition 8 failing would certainly do that for many people.
Kathy
@124 you just said that gay marriage and straight marriage are not the same and, because of this, should not be treated the same. Is it so far a stretch for me to believe that unequal treatment is, by very definition … umm… unequal?
Kathy
@120
Also supported by the bible is a marriage of one man and two women, one man and 700 women, as well one man, one woman and a handful of slave concubines.
Divorce on the other hand is forbidden, and while I do believe the divorce rate in this country is a sad thing, should we create a constitutional amendment revoking the ability to divorce because the bible says it’s wrong?
The bible (and other religious texts) say many things that people feel should not be legislated by government. They also say things which even the faithful ignore altogether because they feel they are wrong to believe. If just one thing in the bible is wrong, might not another be wrong as well?
Flap
Now, you are reaching.
Kim
Flap (response #125) –
Love that you quoted the First Amendment, however, the fact that you’re using it to as an argument that you should be able to impose your religious views on others confuses me.
Your citizenship as an American is independent of your religious affiliation and the decisions you make in your own personal life (in which you follow your religious beliefs) should have nothing to do with the decisions you make as an American for EVERYBODY in the country. I’m sure you’d be screaming for separation of church and state if your religion was being castigated.
Because we are citizens of the United States, I truly believe that you should be able to believe how you wish. You should honor the same for me.
Kims last blog post..Marriage for everyone
Flap
@129
You missed the point.
And, the homosexual community is not forcing their views on me and my family?
Give me a break.
Kathy
@125
You are right that government should be kept out of your religious practices, but shouldn’t your religious beliefs then be kept out of government?
Those who oppose 8, support gay marriage. That’s it. Gay marriage does not keep you from your church, it does not limit your right to worship, it will not take away your belief, nor will it affect your ability to marry the opposite-sex partner of your choice and to share that belief with your children.
People of other faiths do not believe what you do
They do not practice what you practice
Many of their beliefs go against your own
Do you feel you have the right to tell them what they can and can not believe based solely on your own religion? Do you feel you have the right to regulate the faiths of others?
Why do you feel you have that right when it comes to the marriages of others?
Those who support gay marriage don’t want to limit your faith, just your ability to legislate marriage.
Kim
Flap,
I didn’t miss the point, it just doesn’t make sense.
I’ve been legally married for the last 4 months to someone who happens to be my same sex. Has your life changed at all? Things any different?
I’ll tell you that during the previous 6 years that my wife and I wanted to marry and couldn’t, we did notice the difference.
Same-sex marriage is legalized and what happens? For you, nothing changes and you still get to live your life the way you’d like and are not affected in any way, and I get to live my life the way I’d like. Wait, what’s that called? Oh yeah, freedom.
Kims last blog post..Marriage for everyone
Kathy
Not all religions condemn gay marriage, and not all churches refuse to solemnize same-sex unions. Aren’t you prohibiting the free exercise of these institutions, when you tell them who can and can not marry?
Flap
It is called imposition upon me a definition of marriage that says same sex marriage and traditional marriage are the same under the law.
Certainly, it affects me, my children and grandchildren by potentially curtailing religious freedom of speech and expression. infringing on the rights of religious organizations to speak out against positions they view as harmful and the rights of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs. Link: http://www.preservingmarriage.org/
It affects society and how many states have already passed Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage? 21 and three to be voted upon November 4.
This is why we will change the California Constitution on November 4 and override the 4 Justices who overturned the original vote of the people.
But, the homosexual lobby will not stop there. Lawsuits in states and federal courts will continue for decades.
And, no it is not called freedom. It is called an end run around the law.
Kim
Flap,
I really do respect your religious beliefs. I believe that you should be able to teach your children the way you wish, always considering your own values. Thank God that America allows you to do that.
I also believe you should be able to speak out and express yourself, just like everybody in the U.S., and I respect that you take the time to do that and stand up for what you feel is important.
I know I’m not going to change your mind. I can only ask that you always consider that we as humans are always influenced by our own experiences and the values and beliefs that have been passed down to us. And because of that limited background, we are always going to be biased in some sense. I recognize that my own upbringing and what I’ve been through has shaped my own thoughts and because of that, I try to always look at the other side of things.
Please don’t label this effort as “the homosexual lobby.” We’re not trying to impose anything on you, I promise. We don’t want to take over the world. I don’t want to affect you or your family’s life.
The four Justices in California objectively looked at the issue, as they should in their position, and were willing to step up and make the decision because they felt it was a matter of civil rights. Throughout history, we’ve needed the justice system to step up and initiate civil movements when the popular “vote” or feelings supported opposing views.
In summary, you should be able to believe how you choose and should be able to speak up about it. I just hope that one day we can actually meet so that you can understand that my love and devotion for my wife is nothing but pure. And I hope you’ll think again about the groundwork of America, how the reason that you’re able to live and raise your children the way you’d like is the same exact argument that I should be able to live the way I choose.
Have a good night.
Kims last blog post..Marriage for everyone
Flap
@132
The vast majority of the world’s religions do not accept the definition of marriage to be other than that of a man and woman.
I thought you were arguing the equity via law argument and not the acceptance of homosexuality via religion?
Flap
@134
Thank you for your respectful post and, also, have a good night.
Flap
@131
This link explains some of the legal consequences if Proposition 8 fails: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
Also, this link: http://whatisprop8.com/Legal-Battles
There is more to the issue than what you portray. There is an agenda for control and the homosexual community is driving the action.
Kathy
@138
In the case of the religious schools, I can understand your point. I would have to read the specific cases to determine whether or not I would agree with it, but in either case, I can completely understand it.
But do you really feel that it is ok, in a non-religious, professional setting, for civil servants or medical professionals to deny services to homosexuals?
Diana Villeda - California
Good morning everyone,
I have been blogging in other sites and I love the respect and common decency shown throughout the discussion here. The hate language used towards me for stating my point of view is really quite offensive. It even extends to the streets of my beachside community, and it shows the true lack of tolerance from the opposition. I am honestly not used to that kind of treatment. Specially for exercising my right to free speech and by placing a bumper sticker on my vehicle that simply states ‘Yes, on 8’.
I am in no way an extremist to either end, I follow the issues closely, try to be objective and of course always think of the consequences to my family and community.
Now to my point, as like Kim @118 in defense of No on 8, would like to state my reasons for being an avid and active supporter of Proposition 8. I am an average woman, with a husband who I love, treasure and to whom I have been married for almost 5 years. We have two terrific boys, a 3 year old and a six month old. As a mother I dream [and honestly fear] the day that I will walk them through those gates that will lead them to their first classroom experience. I will be handing over, the precious, clean and impressionable minds of my beloved little ones over to the education system of the State of California.
So in come the recent developments and actions by the 4 California Supreme Court Judges. It did not take long for me, an ‘Average Joe’ (laugh, it’s funny) to by just scratching the surface, see the consequences and unmistakable experiences my children will have to endure if this proposition fails to pass. Here, let me just show you;
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1815820715/bctid1822459319
I in no way, have ever considered home schooling, I don’t think I could, and with the cost of private schools, ahh, no. My husband and I have worked hard to live in a good community where our tax dollars would provide award winning education to our children. However, with the documented Parker case in Massachusetts, the events in Hayward ( http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78829 ) and the first grade fieldtrip in San Francisco to a lesbian wedding how could I trust the very system I am contributing to? Kim, respectfully, I don’t agree with your statement “My devotion to my wife doesn’t take anything away from the commitment you’ve made to your significant other. It would not weaken or cheapen what you have.” Let me just tell you, I deeply value my parental rights, to the point that I consider them what I value most in my relationship with my husband, and that is, the way WE have agreed to raise our boys. It would definitely weaken my family values.
I don’t know you, you seem, well, quite frankly, too serene for what’s at stake here- and out of all that have blogged here in the opposition, you are the only one that has come out to say you are gay. As a compliment, you are the nicest one. I’ve noticed most of the bloggers, here and elsewhere, are for the most part straight and angry for their friends. Maybe they can learn from you that a little civility goes a long way. So with that said, I don’t know if you have considered the ulterior motives of the movement by entities such as Equality for All’ and ‘Equality California’. They have been pressing ferociously to bring about social acceptance of homosexual behavior. Let me tell you, irregardless of the bible, I have a set of standards and morals in which I was raised by, call me ‘old folk’, ‘ignorant’ and everything else that I’ve been called in the last 6 weeks (which by the way I am not), but I fully intend to raise my children in that same manner. I’ll even stretch to say 98% of the community will agree with me and are and will raise their children in that same way. You will even agree, you will respect the way I will bring up my kids. Except that the heads of your cause don’t want to stop at giving you your marriage license. (PLEASE SEE FLAPS NPR ARTICLE AT @131.)
I feel deeply for you, if truly all you ever wanted was that marriage license. I commend you for finding happiness; so many people out there lack it, specially the very opponents of Prop 8. There is so much hate and anger spewing from them, I don’t understand it. It wasn’t their right to take, the people had already voted on the issue in 2000. A truthful campaign might help the cause, but the dirty uncivilized trickery is really, well, quite low. And people have taken notice. I am not trying to make you straight, you are who you are. I am who I am. I respect that. However, due to the clear and open agenda of the gay and lesbian movement, I cannot compromise to anything else. All the rights are there, in law books in black and white. I hope that Newsome and Co. didn’t count on millions of mothers and fathers in California to sit idle while 2% of the community tried to impose their lifestyle on the other 98%. In the simplest of form and calculation it could not happen. Tsk tsk tsk, shame on them! Confusing people! It will not work, give Californians a little credit.
I will teach my children about sexuality, homosexuality, abortion and the latest of issues when I DEEM IT PROPER and APPROPRIATE. My ex-boss, a good friend, and by the way, very gay, understands my point of view and I understand his, he is a bachelor and really has no interest in getting married. With other friends, I have simply learned to agree to disagree. Novel idea isn’t it?
Kathy
I agree that the school in Hayward was out of line namely because:
Children are not required to learn about marriage until high school
Parents have strong opt-out rights to school content
Also, the first grade field trip to the wedding was conducted after notification was sent, after permission slips were signed and after parents were given the full option to opt-out (only two did by the way, and their choice was accepted)
The Parker family was told about the book bag before it was sent home and bringing it home was not a requirement.
California is not Massachusetts
The live and let live sentiment of agreeing to disagree doesn’t exactly apply when the caveat is “as long as we get what we wantâ€. Now, you could make the argument that opponents to 8 are saying the same thing, so at least we are equal in that respect.
Gays are part of society. They exist in the world and will continue to exist (and be accepted by others) whether or not 8 passes. And while you should be the one who decides when some topics are broached, you can not keep your children in a bubble.
Do you avoid inviting your good, very gay friend over for dinner so as not to expose your children to his effects too early?
That last comment was snarky and I apologize, but I really do want to know. If you do avoid it, what exactly do you think his presence in your house will do? If you do invite him, do you fear that your acceptance of your good friend might lead your children to think that you accept gays?
You at least seem to be able to accept him for who he is, yet personally condemn him for what he does. Don’t you think the rest of society can handle that?
Kim
Diane,
Thank you for your comment. I am just as passionate about the issue as the seemingly more aggressive No on Prop 8 supporters. The vote next Tuesday will decide if I get to stay married to my wife.
I was so upset when the school from the Bay Area decided to take their students to a gay marriage. The timing of it was horrible and it was such a bad decision. Though on a side note, every parent had to sign a permission slip for their student to go. But, what makes me sad is that the children have found themselves at the middle of this issue. While we need to consider the children of the country and how they will be effected when we vote on every proposition and politician next week, the fact that they’re the basis for the Yes on Prop 8 argument is troublesome.
As a student for 19 years, I was never taught about marriage in school. Today, as a teacher in California, I have never discussed the issue. My students don’t know I’m gay. To discuss personal issues like that, whether it’s regarding straight or gay relationships, is inappropriate. Not to mention that vast amounts of curriculum that we’re inundated with. The idea that teachers will all of a sudden begin to push a pro-homosexuality agenda if same-sex marriage continues to be legal is unsettling. The fact that this has become the basis for the Yes on Prop 8 argument, I feel, is also without merit and is done to confuse voters.
I agree with you that both sides should have been truthful throughout. What’s happened on my side of the argument, is that No on Prop 8, specifically those who are gay, are feeling like they’re being attacked and pinned against a wall and thus feel the need to lash out. While I don’t condone it, I have to be honest and say that I’ve felt a similar type of rage when I hear the argument that my devotion and marriage to my spouse is not as valid as a straight marriage. But, for me and other No on Prop 8 supporters to ask for an open mind on the issue from people who are not comfortable with the idea, and then to disregard your points of view is ridiculous. Bottom line, the animosity and disrespect that’s come from either direction has been discouraging and it doesn’t help either side with their efforts.
There is not more to this “gay agenda” than for acceptance. You’re right. Ultimately, we want to be accepted by our families, friends, coworkers, and anybody else in our lives. Right now we are judged for something that is a part of the core being of our identities, and what that does to our self-esteem is outrageous.
While I respect that we can agree to disagree, I cannot be expected to back down on the issue when my marriage is on the line. You and other voters get to decide if I get to stay married. Does that seem right to you?
Thank you again for your nice comments and respectful arguments.
Kims last blog post..Football smootball…
BeetleBabee
Most people just want to get along, but for some, getting along is not enough. One of the deceptive ideas in the culture wars is “So what if you’re apples and we’re oranges, can’t we all share the fruit bowl together?†In the battle of ideas, two diametrically opposing views of society cannot co-exist peacefully side by side…. Or can they? In my mind I picture Tevye, the Jewish dairyman from the play “Fiddler on the Roofâ€, standing in the middle of the road, cow in hand, pondering these diverging moral paths.
Where is the Traditional Family?
Where is the Traditional Family?
On the one hand, we have traditionally proven societal models, based on the basic principles of the ten commandments. Don’t steal, don’t kill, honor your father and mother, don’t lie…do unto others, and so on….basic Judeo-Christian values, handed down from Heaven for the stability of man.
On the other hand is the belief that morality doesn’t matter, that religious values are passé. There is no morality but the morality of convenience. Society determines it’s own morality, subject to change.
I’ve been considering the idea put forth by some that the apples and oranges should just get along. There’s room in the bowl for all. Physically, that is true. All different races and kinds of people live together and get along, even different religions can get along, because at heart, they have common morals and ideals. They ultimately strive for the same goals. What if there is no common moral ground? Is morality different than race? Is morality a zero sum game? or is there really room for all?
At first, there may appear to be room for all, but over time, the reality shows that there is not. For one side to gain ground morally, the other has to lose.
In looking over the globe, the obvious evidence is that there are no cultures who have successfully incorporated multiple sets of moral ideals, especially when it comes to marriage. Surely in all those independently evolving societies, there must be some reason for this. Perhaps it is because it is human nature for some fringe elements to constantly push against the barriers of society. Civilized society is called “civil†because we control our impulsive natures in order to be better people. There are always some who believe it is an imposition on them to require civil behavior in a civil society. The boundaries of civility can move, but only at the loss to the greater civility of the whole. Zero sum game. I believe that is happening here.
To illustrate this point, I point to Massachusetts and the curriculum changes being made there since same sex marriage was introduced. I just got a good look at the book, “King and King“, by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland, that was read by a second grade school teacher to her entire class in a segment teaching about marriage. This book’s inclusion in the Massachusetts elementary school curriculum is shocking not just for the obviously inflammatory ending where the prince marries another prince instead of the princess, but in the way that it tears down and denigrates traditional marriage and women.
“By the time I was your age, I’d been married TWICE!†a horrible looking, overweight, crooked toothed figure tells her son.
How is this portraying marriage to our little ones? Dirty, Cheap? Meaningless? One by one, the princesses are brought in, “No!†the prince says and goes on to comment about how one princess is too fat, one has crooked teeth, one is black and her arms are too long….and the prince ends up marrying another prince. The book sends a message that replaces traditional marriage, it’s not just including, it’s tearing down and replacing.
“Who’s in a Family?†by Robert Skutch is another book used by Massachusetts schools to teach about the family. Not only does it deal with gay families, but it does NOT include traditional, nuclear families on it’s cover. A quick glance illustrates the main point of the book. There are no pictures of what most of us would consider a family. As I look at the arguments of the opposition I have to ask, why the exclusion if there is no anti-traditional agenda?
In the battle of ideas can two opposing views of society co-exist peacefully side by side? No. Not when the views of society are based on completely diametrically opposite moral views, because for some, and there are ALWAYS some…inclusion is not enough. By spreading their version of the core societal values, they reject and replace the time proven, traditional values that made our nation free.
Marriage is the basic element of society. Destroy it or change it, the end is the same. Marriage needs to be strengthened, not redefined. Which version of society do you believe? Is marriage pre-defined? or open to definition? Is morality pre-defined, or open to definition? Which do you want? Both versions can’t live together. One version must dominate. This November, we are being asked to choose.
There are those who say it’s all the same, fire won’t rain from Heaven, the birds will still sing in the morning. No need to worry! Yet all we need to do is take a look at the fight in Canada or Massachusetts to peek into our future. The tables are turning in those societies. These are places that are on the front lines fighting in the culture war. If we allow prop 8 to fail, their fight will be our fight.
See the battle of replacement raging: http://www.massresistance.org
Kim
BeetleBabee,
I disagree with your premise that different moral views cannot coexist.
Thank God for you that you were born straight. But your attitude that your marriage is somehow “dominate” of mine is shallow and nieve. This would be similar to thinking you are better than someone who is another race or sex, though you had nothing to do with your own race or sex.
I am an American. You are an American. We deserve the same rights, period. You shouldn’t get a one-up because of your genetic makeup. Nobody’s taking anything away from you.
For those who are married and against same-sex marriage, is your marriage really about love? Do you love your spouse because they have a penis or vagina? Of course not, just like my marriage isn’t based on that. If it is about the pureness of love, then I don’t understand why there could be any issue with me loving another woman.
If you’re interested in protecting marriage, try focusing on your own and not destroying mine.
Note: I apologize that I’m not being as “polite” today, but the elitist comments today are tough on my stomach.
BeetleBabee
Kim,
The idea that adult sexual preference ought to take precedence over other people’s rights to religion and speech is flawed. The fight over proposition 8 is exactly about the balance between everyone’s rights. I believe your moral choice is not a civil right. Have you seen the french reports? France rejected same sex marriage two years ago based on this very idea.
Reasoning Behind France’s Rejection of Same Sex Marriage
By John-Henry Westen
MONTREAL, March 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In late January, a 30 member parliamentary commission of the French National Assembly published a 453 page Report on the Family and the rights of Children, which rejected same-sex marriage.
DeSerres, told LifeSiteNews.com “Referring to the rights of children as a human rights issue, the report argued that children ‘now have rights and to systematically give preference to adult aspirations over respect for these rights is not possible any more.’â€
In the report, the commission says that “the child represents the future of society.†The commission asks legislators to make sure that “children, confronted with mutations in family models, be fully taken into account and not suffer from situations imposed upon them by adults.†It adds: “The interest of the child must take precedence over adults’ exercise of their freedom (…) including with regards to parents’ lifestyle choices.â€
The report also stresses that marriage; adoption and medically assisted reproduction are inseparable. The report thus, rules out homosexual adoption, and medically assisted reproduction for homosexual couples.
“Based on the best interests of the child,†DeSerres told LifeSiteNews.com, “our Canadian Parliament must re-evaluate the definition of marriage in light of these new developments.†The Montréal based national movement has invited Members of Parliament from all parties to reconsider the definition of marriage by giving priority to the rights of the child, as France has done.
See the 2-page summary of the French report in English:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006_docs/Francesummary.pdf
See the fuller translation here:
http://www.preservemarriage.ca/docs/France_Report_on_the_Family_Edited.pdf
Related articles here:
http://www.preservemarriage.ca/eng/links.htm#FRANCE-REPORT
BeetleBabees last blog post..Why Preserve Man-Woman Marriage
Equal Rights for all
There are a couple of things i would like to address…
First off, the reason why the first grade class went to a gay wedding as a field trip, was because one of the brides was their teacher. If you have a problem with gay marriage being taught in school, then either send your child to private school or get over yourself. If anything, the fact that Gays are allowed to marry would teach our impressionable children that everyone, no matter their race, religion, or sexual preference is equal under the law.
After all, marriage is not a sacred institution as some people suggest, it is a contract; a legal, binding agreement. “Marriage” is just a word. It is defined by the dictionary as “a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other.” The fundamental fear of change is something that imbeds in the Republican mind. The fear of words. When we were little, we heard the saying, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Obviously, some of us did not get the message. Words are words. Love between two people is what matters. The problem in this country is divorce and all that homosexuals want to do is get married.
Another argument that just kills me is that “God defined marriage as a sacred institution between a man and a woman.” Actually, that is wrong. Those who wrote the bible defined marriage as that. Neither Jesus nor God wrote the bible. Prejudiced and imperfect men wrote the bible. My favorite argument is the one that says that being gay is a choice. Then, wouldn’t being straight be a choice? Ponder that. People don’t just wake up one day and say “ooh i am gay.”
Last time i checked, gays pay taxes just like the rest of us. They should have the same rights as those who are straight. It is not for the people of California to decide whether or not to give certain rights to certain people. In my mind, looking back at history, you can substitute the word gay for the word jew or the dreaded “n” word. We have throughout history fought several wars to prevent prejudices such as the flat out hatered of homosexuals. This, in my mind, is another war; however, this war can not be fought with guns or weapons but only with people speaking the plain and simple truth. All humanity is created equal.
James
Whether 8 passes or not, I think we should start gaining signatures right now for a new proposition that banishes all government recognition of marriage. Marriage should be a religious value only. The government and religious institutions have already proven they are not very good at figuring out who should and shouldn’t get married as shown by our divorce rate.
Nobody should be able to gain any benefit or cost to being married. If people want to set up some type of tax haven or inheritance rights let them incorporate as a partnership. Then, no matter whether they are same sex or different they’d all have the same rights. The government should no longer conduct marriages. If there’s a religion that will marry same sexes or consenting adults of sound mind, good luck to them. They can conduct the divorce too! However, for finances or what not, that would be a corporation question that could be decided in courts. Divorce and marriage would be strictly religious. It’s time to get a better separation of Church and State.
James
One other thing. Having a field trip to a wedding is misguided at best. I don’t care if the teacher is the one getting married or not. If a teacher were getting a breast reduction/augmentation would they have a field trip to that? I, unfortunately, don’t know all the facts on this case. But, it sounds like someone wanted to go to the wedding but didn’t want to or couldn’t take a day off work so they decided to take the class. Does anyone have more information on this particular case? Has the class taken field trips to traditional weddings, Jewish weddings, Muslim weddings, polygamist weddings, vegas weddings, or was this just a ploy? I wouldn’t want my kid taking a day off of school to go to anything like this. Vote no on 8. Vote yes on fixing our school system and getting teachers that start to teach kids. Union NO! Selfless teachers YES! Legalize drugs now! No on 8!!
Kathy
@143 I do not believe your argument is sound.
On the one side are all the moral people in the world who follow the Ten Commandments
While on the other are all the amoral Godless heathens?
It’s an exaggeration of a paraphrase of your exact wording I know, but do you really see the universe as black and white?
1) The Ten Commandments do not condemn same-sex marriage
2) There are more than ten measures of morality.
Diana Villeda - California
I am so sorry, I have been so busy, that this is the only time I have to post. The campaign is coming to an end and the last few days are vital.
Kathy, thanks for acknowledging Hayward. Kim you didn’t, so is by what you stated @142 ‘the timing was horrible’ Do you mean to say it would all be fair game after the elections? I do know about the consents to the fieldtrip– IT WAS SAN FRANCISCO after all, but they still should have been in school, and I don’t think it was a ‘teachable moment’ as the article stated. Unfortunately, now, no one can deny Hayward. Your right, what horrible timing! As the grassroot effort marches forward in full throtle, everyone knows, rendering the latest dirty commercial by the No campaign mute. See, people cannot be discounted. They will investigate, and find out, and there are plenty of people ready to inform them in every neighborhood up and down California. The untruthful, deceitful and dirty attacks are left to be just that, dirty.
You now something else that puts the voters out, the independent voter guides that my neighbors and I received this week. My good neighbor Nick, older greek gentleman, was undecided on the issue, as was his wife (they didn’t want to amend the Constitution). He came by this morning and brought over the guide and told me “You are not a ‘monger’ or a ‘liar’ Diana, why are they expecting any tolerance from anyone? I guess I am one too since in 2000 I voted yes on 22? you can count on our votes for Yes on 8”.
The ballot guide read “The monger are at it again, don’t let them fool you …..” That will not play well with the 61% yes on 22 voters from 2000. Why resort to the scare tactics? Honestly, why are we being placed in this category for opposing a proposition and executing our basic liberties? I have yet to call anyone anything throughout this whole thing. I’ve been out there and could easily use ugly words to hurt the opposition, but I choose not to.
I bet if you showed more people your case, Kim, it would be more real, truthful and a more successful campaign. Why is it that they don’t show a loving homosexual couple? Is it again a ‘social acceptance’ thing?
Kathy, in regards to my friend(s), gay or straight. Promiscuous or celibate, catholic or protestant, I don’t sit my children down every time they come over to judge them for having diferent views or belief. We just enjoy them as people. We have friendships, and when the time is appropiate, in my judgement (probably at 8 or 9), I will talk to my boys about those differences. AND that, is why my vote has been casted as, Yes on 8. I don’t trust proven liars. I will protect my children over anything. Sorry Kim, believe me, I respect your relationship. But shame the the ulterior motives of the movement.